Design for Disassembly in Practice

Design for Disassembly in Practice

A dissertation submitted to the Manchester School of Architecture for the Masters of Architecture.

2014

Tengku Inda Syazwi binti Tengku Zubir

Manchester School of Architecture University of Manchester Manchester Metropolitan University

Page|1

D E CL A R A T I O N

No portion of the work referred to in the dissertation has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or another institute of learning.

Copyright Statement

(1) Copyright in the text of this thesis rests with the Author. Copies (by any process) either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with instructions given by the Author and lodged in the John Rylands Library of Manchester. Details may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form part of any such copies made. Further copies (by any process) of copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the permission (in writing) of the Author.

(2) The ownership of any intellectual property rights which may be described in this thesis is vested in the Manchester School of Architecture, subject to any prior agreement to the contrary, and may not be made available for use by third parties without the written permission of the University, which will prescribe the terms and conditions of any such agreement.

(3) Further information on the conditions under which disclosures and exploitation may take place is available from the Head of Department of the School of Environment and Development.

Page|2

CONTENT Acknowledgement and Abstract CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 2: METHODS 2.1

Methodology 2.1.1

Literature Review

2.1.2

Semi-Structured Interviews

2.2

Procedure

2.3

Interview Schedule

2.4

Respondent’s Background

2.5

Summary of Interviewees

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW 3.1

Connection Between Waste and Growth

3.2

Lifecycle control of building design

3.3

Cradle-to-Cradle Theory

3.4

Design for Disassembly

3.5

Design for Disassembly of Buildings in Practice

CHAPTER 4: DESIGN FOR DISASSEMBLY IN PRACTICE 4.1

How Does The Design For Disassembly Approach Changes The Way That Architects Approach A Building Project

4.2

How Does The Design For Disassembly Approach Changes The Way That Buildings Are Constructed

4.3

What Are The Materials And Design Implications Of This Model Strategy

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION Bibliography and Appendix

Page|3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, to my supervisor, Prof. Andrew Karvonen; I cannot fully express my gratitude for your support and superb guidance. Furthermore, my sincere appreciation to the course coordinator, Prof. Leandro Minuchin; for the preparation of this paper. I also thank Warner Sobek, Dr. Frank Heinlein, and Prof. Jouke Post; who willingly participated in the interviews and answered all the questions, as well as contributed comments and guidance to the research. In addition to the names listed, Zlatina Sp, Mohd Fakhruradzi, Saidatul Syahirah binti Shazri, Anwar bin Fader and Anwar bin Noral Hadi; contributed to the data collection and analysation.

Page|4

ABSTRACT

Around 165.1 million tonnes of waste were produced across the industrial, commercial and domestic sector by the United Kingdom in 2008. The construction, demolition and excavation sector was the largest contributor of these wastes. With this situation of resources from the construction, demolition and excavation area being wasted in a cradle-to-grave system. Nonetheless, the true manifestation of the natural ecosystem is there are no ‘useless’ waste in nature, instead it is a closed loop cycle whereby all wastes are reused, remanufactured, recycled and reconfigured for something else. At the design stage of a project, the more cyclical view of the built environment and the resources within it will acknowledge the construction as well as the deconstruction process. As a whole, these considerations would be implemented for the need to design not for assembly, but for disassembly.

This paper is concerned with the representation of Design for Disassembly being implemented into actual practice. Thus, it is necessary to examine how does the Design for Disassembly approach changes the way that architects approach a building project, how does the Design for Disassembly approach changes the way that buildings are built and what are the materials and design implications of this novel strategy. Through research of existing literature supported by a series of semistructured interviews with different architects, an analytical framework will be presented studying the design approach and explaining the lessons that have been learnt and their application to other buildings of a similar nature internationally. The information obtained from existing literature and the material acquired from primary research reveals that Design for Disassembly does alter the design approach but does not entirely changes the way architects approach the building design. The question of using new materials or construction techniques is not appropriate anymore as the true question goes to how much energy and effort to be placed into the design process of the structure and the construction process itself.

Page|5

FIGURES Figure (1.1) p. 9, 2014, Natural Cycle: Cradle-to-Cradle Figure (1.2) p. 10, Life Cycle of Materials and Components for Improved Sustainability (Crowther 1999) Figure (3.1) p. 24, “If the facts are right, we are essentially in WALL-E the prequel, except that it’s going to happen a lot sooner” Figure (3.2) p. 25, The Great Pacific Trash Patch Figure (3.3) p. 29, The Mutual Situation of a Cradle-to-Grave Flow of Resources in the Built Environment (Crowther 1999) Figure (3.4) p. 31, Lifecycle Assessment Metric Based on Common Building Practices, Highlighting the Areas of Significant Negative Impact (Crowther 1999) Figure (3.5) p. 33, Integrative Life Cycle Model of the Built Environment (Durmisevic 2006) Figure (3.6) p. 36, 2014, Conventional Production Diagram Figure (3.7) p. 36, 2014, Zero Waste Production Diagram Figure (3.8) p. 39, The Four Possible Reincarnation Scenarios of Resources in the Built Environment (Crowther 1999)

Page|6

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Page|7

In the current industrialised society, both the community and the building sector at large have a common practice in dealing with unwanted buildings, which is to strip anything of immediate value, while demolishing the rest, causing the majority of the materials only dumped as waste. However, now it is becoming more obvious that, either environmentally or economically, this practice cannot be sustained (Crowther 1999). Around 165.1 million tonnes of waste were produced across the industrial, commercial and domestic sector by the United Kingdom in 2008. The construction, demolition and excavation sector was the largest contributor of these wastes, consuming 49% of the total waste produced and encompassing for around 3% of all direct United Kingdom’s emissions (Chisholm 2012). All of these wastes are currently recycled or reused either on the same site in the follow on construction, or taken off site for reuse and recycled elsewhere. Nonetheless the remainders are still simply dumped into landfills (Adams, Hobbs and Yapp 2012). With this situation of resources from the construction, demolition and excavation area being wasted in a cradle-to-grave system, it is not the only system of the lifecycle. The cradle-to-grave theory imitates the human analogy of the lifecycle from birth to death, as it is a linear chain of events with the end and not a loop cycle (Braungard and McDonough 2002).

Likewise the general system of the resource life cycle is thought to be the same linear chain with a beginning and an end, yet it is a limiting cycle for the building materials and components. Unlike humans, this ideology is not an appropriate depiction for the lifecycle of resources as it follows a true cycle of life in which it may have many embodiments within the built environment instead of the linear path. Moreover, the true manifestation of the natural ecosystem is there are no ‘useless’ waste in nature, instead it is a closed loop cycle whereby all wastes are reused, remanufactured, recycled and reconfigured for something else (Zero Waste Youth n.d.).

Page|8

Figure 1.1: Natural Cycle: Cradle-to-Cradle (Braungard and McDonough 2002)

Page|9

Figure 1.2: Life Cycle of Materials and Components for Improved Sustainability (Crowther 1999)

P a g e | 10

A question asked by (Durmisevic 2006), “is there not a way whereby the building components could be used as a resource pool for new construction?�

Nonetheless, numerous technical barriers to a successful retrieval and reuse of materials and components were shown from the current practice in the deconstruction of existing buildings. These barriers were the result of the current practice sees the assembly of components and materials as a linear path of system with an end goal of producing the final product (Crowther 1999). Instead, at the design stage of a project, a more cyclical view of the built environment and the resources within it will acknowledge the construction as well as the deconstruction process. As a whole, these considerations would be implemented for the need to design not for assembly, but for disassembly (Durmisevic 2006). While little attention was paid to the issues of reuse and recycling by the modern industrialised building practice, various designers and architects have successfully constructed buildings that have been specifically designed for disassembly and deconstructed for reuse (Crowther 1999). Analysis of these designers and architects highlights common strategies of Design for Disassembly. Furthermore, reviews of architectural history, precedents, and of related industries such as industrial design, shows that there are two main principle strategies of Design for Disassembly. As according to (Crowther 1999), the first part are the broad topics that address the issues of what, why, when and where to disassemble, and the second part are the specific design principles of how to design for disassemble.

These can offer useful information to practicing architects and future designers whom are seeking to improve the rates of future materials and component recovery, alongside raising awareness among the general public.

P a g e | 11

This research will tell the story of how designers and architects have successfully built buildings with the fundamental basis of ‘Design for Disassembly,' and how the theory is being implemented into actual practice. It examines the main principle strategies of Design for Disassembly, analyses the design approach and explains the lessons that have been learnt and their application to other buildings of a similar nature internationally by answering these three main questions:1. How does the Design for Disassembly approach changes the way that architects approach a building project?

2. How does the Design for Disassembly approach changes the way that buildings are built?

3. What are the materials and design implications of this novel strategy?

These questions refer to the research, study and analysis of Design for Disassembly and add to the body of knowledge. It is not possible in this scope of the research project to review all individual methods of designing in different architectural firms, but certain aspects will be discussed in response to the designing and construction realities. Also, elements highlighted in this study may not be directly transferable to a different nature of the project. However, the methods of analysis and the systems learnt could be utilised in the same way. These analysis methods are a qualitative study, and there might not be enough rational principles driving it. The final limitation is the short time span for the research as it may not be enough for full viable results. At the end of this paper, it should conclude that disassembly is not only sustainable option to the future use of this building but in most cases a better option than demolition or even deconstruction. It is believed that the conclusion of this research could be used to other buildings of any environmental or economic region, as it is a system which could be implemented into the design process, not a built form.

Subsequently, at the end of this research it is hoped that it will be an eye opener especially to the practicing architects and future designers all over the world on the importance of designing for disassembly, alongside raising awareness among the general public.

P a g e | 12

CHAPTER 2: METHODS

P a g e | 13

2.1

Methodology The methodology that I am going to use to investigate the implementation of ‘Design for Disassembly' (DfD) theory in practice is with these primary methods: Literature Review and Semi-Structured Interviews.

In realising a building according the DfD principles, a record was made of the most important attributes that are allotted in literature. The literature survey emphases on the period from 1999 to 2012. In the recent years, studies on the use of the DfD approach have frequently occurred. Several contributions are presented in publications by (Crowther, Design for Disassembly 1999) and (Crowther, Designing for Disassembly to Extend Service Life and Increase Sustainability 1999), (Braungard and McDonough 2002), (Durmisevic 2006), (Saleh and Chini 2009), (A. Paduart, et al. 2009), (Hobbs and Adams 2012), (Altamura 2012), (Kyle, Foo and Torrey 2012) and (Nielsen and Larsen 2012).

In the second set, interview sessions with two professionals in the field of DfD applications were conducted. The respondents were asked to reflect on what they considered as the main challenges for realising a building in line with the DfD principles and their experiences with implementing it. Besides being qualified in the design and building process, respondents satisfied at least one of the following criteria:

-

Has successfully completed a Design for Disassembly project, or;

-

Is a sustainability manager at a community or company that certifies and creates Design for Disassembly systems

The literature study and semi-structured interviews resulted in solidification of the DfD principles for the development of a framework and structure with desired results and features that seem to be important to realise a structure according to the DfD principles. In order to deliver a different outlook on the subject of the matter, each of these methods was chosen in an attempt to encourage a nuanced and balanced study and to collect data from differing angle of viewpoints. They would also support

P a g e | 14

the naturalistic and qualitative methodology of the study (Cookson 2010). My aims were to get a sense of how the theory was implemented and with what result. This is a qualitative not a quantitative study, yet with rational principles driving it.

2.1.1

Literature Review Writing on the literature review, it was stated that the purpose is to gather a body of information, which has conceptual importance for a particular inquiry, existing in a wide variety of stored formats (Groat and Wang 2002). Establishing historical precedent and to device a set of key performance indicators for a successful DfD was one of the key order of performing the literature review. It is a comprehensive subject and is not a new concept within the built environment. Given the nature of the study I was able to utilise the vast amounts of information that the Green Conference Proceedings and Lifecycle Design of Building Systems and Materials Conference Proceedings had to offer on DfD. The majority of my background on the area was gathered from this source: books, reports and PhD thesis, and related journals. Research done by the Prof. Elma Durmisevic was also very useful resource. Being able to understand on the main theoretical principles of DfD through her talks and slides and to have access to the thesis done by Dr. Elma were invaluable. Also, the main inspiration of this research was from the book ‘Cradle-to-Cradle; Remaking the Way We Make Things’ by (Braungard and McDonough 2002) helped to fill in some gaps for my research and the initial aim of it.

P a g e | 15

2.1.2

Semi-Structured Interview Prior to embarking on the interviews, an informed investigation surrounding the theory of DfD being implemented into actual practice is crucial as it is to understand the principles and attitudes of these architectural practices. I will rationalise certain aspects relating to the interviews that would allow me to most effectively capture the ways in which how the theory is implemented. These semi-structured interviews are a similar process used as to the standard interview in that there are questions compiled prior which are posed to each interviewee (Booth 2010). (Groat and Wang 2002) noted, one of the important tactics in data gathering is the ‘use of local informants and lore’. My decision to choose this method was based on the reasoning that qualitative data would most effectively support my study. The semistructured form allowed the interviews to go a little of track yielding wider results. Moreover, as the interview unfolds these interviews allow questions to be ignored or expanded upon so that it can respond to emergent topics of debate that the interviewee may mention. This technique also enables to develop a rapport with the designer so that rather than a strict question and answer questions, the interview becomes a conversation for thoughts and feelings. Hence, the allowance for impromptu questions to be incorporated could be achieved by the promotion of flexible discussions which also consents answers of a personal nature that produce findings of high validity specific to this study (Borden and Ray 2006).

A range of interviewees was selected representing a cross-section of current architects, whereby two key persons were specially picked as to extract their knowledge of the principles surrounding it. The data received from were of different frames of references and life views prior from a careful selection of the respondents that I interviewed, which in hope adds texture and richness to my study aside from assisting the exploration of different viewpoints relating to the dissertation research topics. Initially, interviewing two architects and two architectural academics were considered who would be from a practicing world stance, during the other two from a

P a g e | 16

more theoretical stance. It became apparent as per following deliberation off possible subjects that it would be more valuable to interview people from different background of the practicing world, rather than just numerous designers from a different background. Therefore, it was decided to perform two semi-structured interviews with two practicing architects who were – and continue to be – influential in the DfD principles; ad also from different sized, country and experience practices. The chosen subjects are based within Stuttgart, Germany and Rotterdam, Netherlands, and they were interviewed within their normal working context (Groat and Wang 2002). Interviewing the chosen respondent’s in their natural context allows for a more holistic insight in to their architectural philosophy of Design for Disassembly and practice (Huberman and Miles 1994).

The architects selected for the interviews will be identified in the Chapter 3.4. The interview with these two architects has provided me with a broad base of information linking not only to the architectural elements of the area, but also in terms of strategies and perceived successes of the DfD projects. It is evident that these two interviews provide a more comprehensive cross-section of architects due to their different entry level into architectural design, which will contribute towards varied and valid primary materials (Groat and Wang 2002).

.

2.2

Procedure By briefly introducing the research project, the chosen candidates were contacted via email, and were asked if they would be interested in providing primary data for this study (Borden and Ray 2006). The interviews were subsequently arranged upon acceptance and I am to meet them in person at their office. However, due to a strike in Germany, I was unable to interview Warner Sobek in person, which in the end we did a telephone call instead. Moreover, Warner Sobek himself is not available in the week of interview but Dr. Frank Heinlein, whom is the Director Business Communication of Warner’s firm, is kind enough to take his place and

P a g e | 17

answer in his stead. During the interviews, the interviewees were recorded and documented using a digital recording device and transcribed the verbatim following the interview. This permitted the semi-structured style to be developed without restraint, enabling me to extract quotations and themes following the interviews.

Furthermore, improvised questions could be thought of and asked in reaction to the discussion of topics and themes allowing me to focus more on interacting and responding with the interviewees. If I had simply been focusing on writing down the interviewee’s responses these opportunities would have been made more difficult.

A series of questions were produced for the interview process exploring the themes of the dissertation (see Chapter 2.3). In ensuring that particular topics were discussed and probed, these questions were used as a general structure, whilst allowing for the generation of new questions during the interview process. The transcribed interviews* allow for review and comparison of the principles of DfD in relation to the literature of this subject. I extracted the themes from the different methods and collated them when I had gathered all the primary data, so they read as a narrative. As the important issues regarding the project emerged from multiple sources, this process yielded overlaps and tensions, providing me with the specific issues that needed to be addressed. In a nutshell, the semi-structured interview methodology was helpful in revealing a number of compelling issues about the DfD principles and the applications to practice. These issues are then explored in the next chapter.

* (For interview recordings please see Appendix)

P a g e | 18

2.3

Interview Structure To achieve the most comparable and consistent data results I decided to ask questions tailored specifically to each interviewee, yet with all the questions based on the same key themes:

Question Question Themes Sets 1

Where did you receive your degree from and in what course? So how has it helped you in your current position?

2

What is your current position in___?

3

When were you first exposed to DfD?

4

Are there any particular projects that you have worked on with the principles of DfD?

5

How does DfD alter the process of design? Does it require different expertise?

6

Does it differ from the concept of sustainable design and prefabrication or does it instead marry with it?

7

Does it require any specific technology for DfD?

8

How does it change the construction process?

9

Does it force the designer to find a different substitution of materials?

10

How do you think the DfD approach will evolve over the next 10 to two years? Will it remain a niche practice or will it be more common?

P a g e | 19

2.4

Respondents’ Background Prior to discussing the theme of study in the interviews, the designers gave a brief introduction and background of themselves within the field of architecture.

Warner Sobek studied structural engineering and architecture at the University of Stuttgart, and finished his Ph.D. in structural engineering. He has been a qualified architect where he founded his own company Werner Sobek. He became professor at the University of Hanover and director of the Institute for Structural Design and Building Methods. Werner Sobek is known for his environmentally sustainable and self—sufficient prototype houses such as R128 and H16. His commitment to sustainability is also reflected in his involvement, in the German Sustainable Building Council DGNB. Werner Sobek was one of the DGNB’s founders where he was elected as the council’s president.

Jouke Post is a graduate from the Delft University of Technology and has been a qualified architect with local practice XXarchitecten, where he is the founder of the practice with a focus on Cradle-to-Cradle philosophy projects. He became professor at the University of Technology Eindhoven (TU/e) and chairman of the unit Architectural Designing and Engineering. Jouke Post is known for his environmentally sustainable and involvement in the Cradle-to-Cradle houses such as the C2C House and ProjectXX.

P a g e | 20

2.5

Summary of Interviewees

Name

Current

Architectural

Design Perspective

Interview

Employment Education Warner Stuttgart, Sobek

Germany

Masters in structural The architecture of 3 engineering architecture,

April

and our own time and 2014 the

future

must 23 minutes

University of Stuttgart exhibit a radically different, PhD

in

engineering,

viz.

structural positive, attitude to the

natural

University of Stuttgart environment and its users

and

to

its

inherent technology Jouke

Rotterdam,

Masters

Post

Netherlands

architecture, University Technology

in A building is only 8

April

Delft limited to a set time, 2014 of and we have to think 30 minutes in advance what you would do with the material.

P a g e | 21

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW

“Most modern buildings today are made of prefabricated components designed to be mountable, but not demountable. For this reason assembly of buildings can be seen as a complex sequence of connecting carefully designed components and material, a process that may involve thousands of people and fleets of machines. On the other hand, disassembly in the building industry usually involve a few bulldozers and some explosives�

(Crowther 1999, pg. 1984)

P a g e | 22

3.1

Connections Between Waste and Growth As outlined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Construction and demolition (C&D) waste are waste materials generated during the demolition and also the construction of existing buildings, bridges and roads. The materials listed under C&D materials include wood, asphalt, metals, concrete, plastics, gypsum and salvaged building components (Shrivastava and Chini 2009). It fits to link growth with the C&D waste, owing to the growth of construction in the world (Saleh and Chini 2009). Finite resources such as petroleum products, water and minerals are being consumed in high rates to produce our buildings. The depletion of the Earth’s energy resources and materials will continue to increase, as the world’s population is continuing to grow, which leads to the degradation of human health and also our natural environment ((EEA) 2001). Research done by (A. Paduart, et al.

2009) indicates that the sector that is responsible for a high contribution to the consumption of these natural resources is the built construction world. (Saleh and Chini 2009) also states that over 50% of waste production come from the building sector, whilst the amount of material resources taken from nature is 50% which are building related. C&D waste are amongst the significant issues to be aware of for developed and developing countries which have already been in the construction boom period or undergoing that phase. New construction, renovation of buildings, and maintenance including the production of building materials generates 45% of the European waste (A. Paduart, et al. 2009). Research done by (Adams, Hobbs and Yapp 2012) stated that in the UK, waste from construction, demolition and excavation represents the largest waste stream at an estimated 87 million tonnes in 2008. Out of this figure, at least 21 million tonnes of inner waste are from demolition wastes.

Approximately 3 million tonnes of C&D waste were landfilled in the UK last year, corresponding to the State of UK Waste Management, which equates to over 12% of the total C&D waste (Saleh and Chini 2009). All this will lead to a high diversion from landfill rates, typically over 90%, for demolition wastes (Adams, Hobbs and Yapp 2012).

P a g e | 23

Figure 3.1: If the facts are right, we are essentially in WALL-E the prequel, except that it’s going to happen a lot sooner

P a g e | 24

Figure 3.2: The Great Pacific Trash Patch

P a g e | 25

As according to (Shrivastava and Chini 2009), new construction and demolition of an existing building/ structure is not the only main cause of waste generation from the construction industry, but also renovation or repair of buildings, where constituting roughly a quarter of the solid waste disposal. Because C&D waste is bulky, heavy and inert, it will be a very challenging task in handling it; with an additional fact that it is also a mixture of various materials of different characteristics.

A suitable disposal method would also be difficult to choose, as, for example, due to its high density and inertness, it could not be easily incinerated (Shrivastava and Chini 2009). These wastes may be problematic to recover, as they are termed ‘difficult’, due to their material composition, contamination, their low value, and techniques of demolition or strip-out, which as a result are likely to end up in a landfill (Adams, Hobbs and Yapp 2012). As according to (Adams, Hobbs and Yapp 2012), due to their hazardous qualities, high embodied energy or global warming potential some may also have relatively high environmental impact so the inability to recover these wastes at the end of their lifetime increases their overall effect onto the environment. If considerations to minimise the handling of the C&D wastes are not developed and efficiently adopted, the environment may as well be in jeopardy. However, there is a growing concern of the possibility to improve, or maintaining these high recycling rates into the future in the demolition sector, by reason of the increasing prevalence of difficult demolition waste (Adams, Hobbs and Yapp 2012).

Owing to the arrival of sustainable practices, C&D waste handling and production issues have been in the spotlight recently, with the aim of attaining the sustainable objectives for the general future (A. Paduart, et al. 2009). Minimisation and handling of C&D waste is a necessary tool to resolve the outstanding problem as a result of the increasing quantum of demolition waste and limited landfill space (Shrivastava and Chini 2009). Looking into a developing country, according to Dubai Municipality’s Waste Management Department’s annual report from various construction sites in the city, a total amount of 27.7 million tonnes of C&D waste were removed in 2007. In comparison to the waste generated in 2006, it is a recording growth of 163% as compared to just 10.5 million tonnes (Shrivastava and Chini 2009). Nevertheless, only in countries with fewer mineral resources is the recycling rate C&D waste significant, such as the Netherlands, and in other virtuous countries such as Austria and Germany (European Commission 2011). As according to P a g e | 26

(European Commission 2011), each country tends to be more concentrated on recycling specific fractions of the C&D waste produced depending on the range of techniques available locally. All of these materials virtually are currently recycled or reused either on the same site in the follow on construction, or taken off site for reuse and recycled elsewhere (Adams, Hobbs and Yapp 2012). Active engagement of the whole value chain is required in the construction sector for improved sustainable materials, improved design and higher waste recycling to be part of the improvements’ (Altamura 2012). Some of the multiple efforts made to address the recycle demolition materials and C&D waste are introducing prefabrication strategies and reusing building components to reduce materials usage. Nonetheless, this paper will investigate more in a radical strategy which completely reorients or reimagine the lifecycle of a building.

P a g e | 27

3.2

Lifecycle Control of Building Design The creation of a generation of cheap and inefficient buildings witnessed by the time of 1960 to 1990 was quickly sold to the building owners, commissioned by speculators/developers. They were built down to the lowest space standards and legal construction at the time of space shortages in the building industry and widespread speculative development. This situation meant more than ever that tenants would find even the poorest quality space. (Storey 2009) The importance of the existing building stock as a cultural, economic and social capital should not be wasted since it will remain with us for decades (A. Paduart, et al. 2009). Despite the fact that buildings represent a huge investment of resources, the general feeling that these buildings should be demolished is shared by both the building sector and the community at large. Demolitions of major building parts often occur due to the lack of integrated adaptability and flexibility, which a demolition of entire buildings could even occur.

As a result, a vast amount of redundant C&D waste are the responsibilities of the traditional/ conventional building design, whereby the amount of C&D waste is still increasing as the number of building activities increase yearly (A. Paduart, et al.

2009). The process whereby the building is broken up or torn down is mainly the general definition of demolition, with little or no attempt to recover any of the essential part for recycle or reuse (Durmisevic 2006). Large volumes of building material debris are created from the traditional/ conventional demolition methods of buildings, proving that it is no longer feasible to serve their original purposes and usually ends up in the landfill. In addition to that, the demolition process itself releases contaminants or particulate matter making it harmful to the environment, as these could potentially affect the air and water quality. (Saleh and Chini 2009).

P a g e | 28

Figure 3.3: Demolition Sequence with Use of Explosive (https://michaelfroio.wordpress.com)

P a g e | 29

Figure 3.4: The Mutual Situation of a Cradle-to-Grave Flow of Resources in the Built Environment (Crowther 1999)

P a g e | 30

Traditional/ conventional buildings are unable to answer the changing social needs, the variable factors of everyday life and to evolve functional requirements of the building, due to the current static building design. The world of today is facing the environmental impacts of excessive consuming construction conditions due to the traditional/ conventional building design and our short term building design vision. So the general question “is there a way of dealing with these buildings, through resources effective and financially beneficial way?” (Storey 2009). Is there not a new way whose building components could be recycled and reused as a resource pool for new construction and the building is made flexible to the design for disassembly?

(Durmisevic 2006). What is needed is an alternative to building design that could take a total life cycle of buildings into account (A. Paduart, et al. 2009). Building transformations are needed more and more to be like a solution in answering the variable factors of daily life. However, due to the lack of flexibility in the traditional/ conventional building design, these crucial transformations are not enabled which often causes the demolition in present renovations of buildings of either parts of the buildings or even the entire building structure (A. Paduart, et al. 2009). A building system are integrated in one dependent and closed structure comprising of different materials and functions, not allowing the alterations and disassembly on its components (Durmisevic 2006). Not only does the incapacity to remove and exchange the building systems and their components results in the lack of spatial adaptability and technical serviceability of the building, but also an increase in significant material and energy consumption and waste production. The process is similar to the way that resources are reused in natural ecosystems, whereby there are no ‘useless’ waste in nature. However, they are always getting reused for something else. As can be seen, by using energy measures a research had been done which commonly focuses on the analysis of the materials and components of the building, and also the performance of the building. Looking at the three columns of sustainability materials, mainly ecological, economic and social dimensions; within the context of sustainability of building materials, a much wider scope should be considered. Thereby, with respect to sustainability, requirements for building materials have not only to be considered but also need to be classified according to the three dimensions. (Sunke and Schultmann 2009)

P a g e | 31

Figure 3.4: Lifecycle Assessment Metric Based on Common Building Practices, Highlighting the Areas of Significant Negative Impact (Crowther 1999)

P a g e | 32

3.3

Cradle-to-Cradle Theory What if the waste is not recycled through infrastructural mechanisms, but instead up-cycled forever? In fact, we could use the advancement of technology to resolve our waste-issues. However, without transformation aspects of the building structures being an essential part of the building process, this design of sustainability runs the danger of carried out on an arranged and formed basis (Durmisevic 2006).

Due to the legal and economic incentives which drive into recycling or energy recovering, this hierarchy still tends to be disregarded all across Europe, without even trying to reuse or reclaim valuable materials. With high loss of materials that have an updated scope or even still suitable to maintain their original function and energy, this brings them to a diffuse down-cycling of components (Altamura 2012). The Roadmap anticipates that by 2020, ‘during the lifecycle which will contribute to the development of a resource efficient building stock and a competitive construction sector, there will be significant improvements in resource and energy. This means that after renovation or construction interventions, we should recycle, reuse and reduce most if not all materials that remains, in order to enhance the adoption of recycled materials and reused components, while at the same time drastically reducing the amount of waste produced (Altamura 2012). After all, the cyclical living system will continuously recycle all the major nutrients of our planet in which ‘waste equals food’ in this sense, whereby for both the biological and technical cycle all wastes are potential nutrients. (Braungard and McDonough 2002) Producing something which is less bad than what we used to produce is not enough, whereby this new method of conceiving production activities elicits a shift at our point of view towards it. We need to design and build things which are good for us as well as for the environment. As quoted by (Altamura 2012), ‘thinking of design in terms of eco-effectiveness may help us to optimize a system that already exists, or it could represent an unprecedented innovation.’

P a g e | 33

Figure 3.5: Integrative Life Cycle Model of the Built Environment (Durmisevic 2006)

P a g e | 34

Historically, improving the reduced consumption and energy efficiency has been centered by the majority of the greening efforts associated with buildings and construction (Kyle, Foo and Torrey 2012). Building owners are pleased by the promise that green buildings will have a higher energy performance which also operates on two distinct levels; the direct economic benefit of using less energy and an altruistic motivation to be environmentally friendly. Relatively, little attention has been paid to the potential economic and environmental benefits of sound life-cycle management of construction materials (Kyle, Foo and Torrey 2012). By closing production cycles, the demand of virgin materials can only be reduced, with innovative materials’ management, inspired from ‘Cradle-to-Cradle’ theory. This approach suggests to for beyond the mere goal of minimising the negative impacts of production, based on eliminating the concept of waste, to a new model where production has positive impacts on the environment and on society, which elevates the ambition from eco-efficiency to eco-effectiveness. Production must become a continuous cycle or use and reuse of materials without waste in order to reach this goal (Kyle, Foo and Torrey 2012). As can be seen, an analysis of the environmental performance of buildings, its materials and components using energy measures is mainly the focus of the research. However, a much wider scope which should be considered within the context of sustainability of building materials occurs when looking at the three columns of sustainability materials, which are the ecological, social and economic dimension.

Thereby, with respect to sustainability, the

requirements for building materials have not only to be considered, but also need to be classified according to these dimensions (Sunke and Schultmann 2009). Materials that are reprocessed and recyclable into new product are required for designing for disassembly. Whether or not in the construction industry and materials that have a high capacity for reuse in succeeding projects, that ultimately closes the materials’ loop to be selected by architects and engineers since the beginning of the construction stage. Closing the materials’ loop, embodied energy and so on are some of the results from different environmental assessments. In order to classify the most environmentally friendly stream for construction materials, these issues should be taken into account in the selection for materials by building designers (Saleh and Chini 2009).

P a g e | 35

3.4

Design for Disassembly If the building sector is to respond to the global economic and environmental challenges, it needs to adapt to the new ways of construction. Rather than destroying the systems and structures while adapting the building to fit new requirements, it would be possible instead to disassemble sections back into components and to reassemble them back into new components. This means that in order to be able to replace these building components and systems later on, we should consider how we can design and integrate them and accordingly, how we can replace and access parts of the existing building components and systems (Durmisevic 2006). One of the overall objects of designing for disassembly is by reducing the environmental impacts such as pollution from the demotion of buildings, alongside with to increase the stream of recycled and used building materials through designing for the recovery and the eventual reprocessing of building materials. The approaches are in order to selectively and systematically deconstruct buildings that would otherwise be completely or partially demolished at the end of their useful lives; the design techniques should be employed to facilitate the recovery of materials with high potential for recycling and reuse (Saleh and Chini 2009). According to (Hobbs and Adams 2012) a recently completed BRE Trust project called ‘Dealing with Difficult Demolition Waste’, revealed that unless the buildings being designed today were easier to take apart, the high recycling rates currently achieved by the demolition sector would decline. Design for disassembly (DfD) and recycling enables resources to be reused when the building is eventually demolished in the most efficient and productive way as compared to maximising recycling and the recovery of existing buildings using the latest demolition or recycling technologies, this is very different as it had tended to be the focus when considering resource efficiency and demolition (Hobbs and Adams 2012).

P a g e | 36

Figure 3.6: Conventional Production Diagram

Figure 3.7: Zero Waste Production Diagram

Such changes would lead to producing longer lasting and flexible facilities to the advantage of property developers, lead to direct economics benefit to recycling P a g e | 37

and reuse communities, and reducing the energy consumption as well as easing the burden on landfill sites (Kyle, Foo and Torrey 2012). Deconstructing a building aims that while maintaining their quality at the end of the building’s useful life; it would recover the building materials, therefore reusing different salvaged building materials and recycling of the waste (Saleh and Chini 2009). The International Council for Research and Innovation in Building Construction (CIB) provided immeasurable and invaluable guidance relative to deconstruction and material harvesting practices from an early identification of the potential contribution of deconstruction to sustainability objectives, as well as the development of various models for Design for Deconstruction and the later distinguishing team Design for disassembly (DfD). With time the significance of sustainable performance of buildings and the lifecycle design has become very evident (Hobbs and Adams 2012). When the building is eventually demolished, recycling and DfD enables resources to be reused in the most efficient and productive way. As compared to maximising recycling and recovery of the existing building using the latest demolition or recycling technologies, this is different for it does not tend to be the focus when considering resource efficiency and demolition (Hobbs and Adams 2012).

Since the publishing of the Bruntland Commissions Report on Environmental Development in the quarter century, the core requirements and issues to meet the objectives of sustainable development (environmental protection, economic development, and social equity and justice) remain relatively unchanged (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2002). Not only that adaptability and deconstruction contributes to preserving the cultural and historical vales inherent in different materials and buildings, they also ultimately lessen the world’s depleting energy and natural material resources (Saleh and Chini 2009). Today in most European countries, saving energy for building operation has been reaping the lowest hanging fruits of energy saving. Embodied energy and lifetime processes must be addresses as a design parameter to reach further goals. Large amounts of resources are lost and little is prepared for reuse through 50% of demolition waste is recycled (Nielsen and Larsen 2012). By designing for the recovery of materials that have the potential to be recycled or reused, DfD is a tool for reducing the environmental burden. As a result, not only does designing for disassembly facilitates the achievement of different environmental cautions, but also results in reducing the P a g e | 38

embodied energy emissions of CO2, minimising the ecological footprint required for the lifecycle of the different building materials, and finally closing the materials’ loop (Saleh and Chini 2009). Reducing the whole life environmental impact of a project, increasing the flexible use and adaptation of property at a minimal future cost and reducing the quantity of materials going to landfill are included in the economic drivers as reported by (Adams, Hobbs and Yapp 2012). In the construction sector worldwide, 10-15% of energy consumption is due to raw material extraction; whereby the recycling and reuse of materials can guarantee the reduction of the environmental footprint in both new construction and retrofitting; and in particular the embodied energy of building components (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2002). The zero waste philosophy is the goal in achieving complete removal of waste from the process of making things that mean not using any un-reusable materials and any extra materials produced are reused and recycled. By doing so, we could ensure that no waste is sent to landfills and incinerators. As compared to traditional production whereby the wastes are sent to the landfill, zero waste production is whereby the waste is recycled and reused back into the system. According to research done by BioRegional Development Group in the United Kingdom, one of the enormous potential ways in eliminating the need for new materials is by salvaging and recycling building materials. The study suggests that up to 95% of the reclaimed, recycled and reused materials’ embodied energy be saved up. (Lazarus 2005) Zero waste is not just a theory, but it is an idea that already exists and is practiced in the real world.

P a g e | 39

Figure 3.8: The Four Possible Reincarnation Scenarios for Resources in the Built Environment (Crowther 1999)

P a g e | 40

From the decisions made in the design and construction of the building, many of these issues arise since we could not actively consider ways in which building materials and components can be put together to facilitate future recycling and reuse, and on guaranteeing that new technologies will be developed to revolutionize demolition to the future (Adams, Hobbs and Yapp 2012). Single components are not only needed to be designed for deconstruction for the ease of easy deconstruction, but the compound materials also have to enable a non-destructive deconstruction and to be easy resolvable (Sunke and Schultmann 2009). The capacity of the building industry would improve due to the enhanced and consistent deconstruction and demolition practices to contribute to the reduce of greenhouse gases, decreases quantities of materials and products entering waste disposal sites and also contributing to the sustainable use of natural resources (Kyle, Foo and Torrey 2012). As a whole, these buildings are designed neither for the recovery of components nor for disassembly but they are designed for assembly.

P a g e | 41

3.5

Design for Disassembly of Buildings in Practice Over the past decades, designers conceived buildings as being permanent and fixed which results in the fact that it is the main problem regarding disassembly, flexibility and reuse. One of the major barriers to effective deconstruction and transformation is the lack of design for disassembly and flexibility in the current building, because they did not make any provisions for their future disposal or adaptation (A. Paduart, et al. 2009). However, huge amounts of resources could be saved and the reuse ratio could potentially be raised drastically if the components and buildings were designed for disassembly (Nielsen and Larsen 2012). Building design will be primarily different from traditional/conventional design methods if we were to allow reuse of building components and to increase the building’s transformation capacity (A. Paduart, et al. 2009). The building design stage should explicitly consider the more evident needs at the end-of life as well as the disassembly requirements that may occur in normal life-cycle maintenance and operation activities if we were to help make this a reality (Kyle, Foo and Torrey 2012). However, it will be impossible to compare the future deconstructability of these designs, in terms of ease of reuse, deconstruction and recycling, until it is possible to assess the design of the building and awarding credits on that basis (Hobbs and Adams 2012). The development towards a resource-gentle building practice can be pushed forward by incorporating DfD in the repertoire of architectural profession as means of expression. The architectural potentials of design for disassembly (DfD) are still relatively unexplored, while there is a developed body of knowledge on the technical aspects of DfD, partly due to the lack of empiricism. However, to expand the field further research could be conducted in e.g. technical functionality, architectural themes or the potential of specific materials (Nielsen and Larsen 2012). Depending on the location and complexity of the project, equipment and labor costs for deconstructing a building can get expensive. However, this helps the developer or owner to minimise the tipping fees since DfD aims at maximising the diversion of materials from landfills, which in return offsets to a great degree the labor an equipment costs associated with deconstructing the building (Saleh and Chini 2009).

P a g e | 42

CHAPTER 4: DESIGN FOR DISASSEMBLY IN PRACTICE

“In the car industry the design for disassembly has been an issue for more than 30 years. Nobody was talking about it in the building industry, but Warner took it out and tried to transfer it, this philosophy, and the approach to the built environment.”

(Heinlein 2014)

P a g e | 43

4.1

How the DfD approach changes the way that architects approach a building project Before starting the interview, the architects were asked ‘how long have they’ve been exposed to DfD?’ Surprisingly, they have been exposed to the DfD philosophy for longer than what our lives is worth (20-40 years), and this ideology have been in the architectural world for as long as during the 60’s, but it was known as a different title.

DfD was a major topic, however; nobody was talking about it in the building industry, but these architects took it out and tried to transfer this ideology to the built environment. As stated by Jouke Post: “Do you know John Hargark? You have to find him because he is the father of DfD... So the title was no ‘Disassembly’ but the title was ‘Flexibility’ and to make a wide scope of the type, but it is also very easy to disassemble it… So it was started in the 60’s, his thoughts about it and the system.” (Post 2014)

When asked on how the DfD ideology alters the process of design, both the architects explained that the basic concept of how DfD came to be should be grasped first. After so will, they discuss on how from these basic principles does it affect the design process and to what extent. It agreed that the fundamental approach to this ideology is from the flexibility of the lifecycle of a building. As we should not only create and design a building that could last for 100 years, but also a building that is flexible enough to be able to change and disassemble within that 100 years with minimal impact onto the surrounding environment. This is enforced by a statement made by Dr. Frank Heinlein on Warner Sobek’s behalf: “The general philosophy of Warner is that buildings should be ephemeral in the sense that the buildings can last for a 100 years if the users considered this

useful, but they can equally disappear

without a trace within a very short time. So they do not leave any traces, material traces, even in the ground or on the ground, in the form of toxic waste or residues which cannot be disposed of. So the P a g e | 44

basic idea is to have structures that are as lightweight as possible. So we would want to reduce the number of materials and bushels of the amount of energy that goes into the building, and to find a way how the building can be either refurbished or completely dismantled after a period of 1 year, 10 years, or 100 years.” (Heinlein 2014) Prof Jouke Post expands upon Dr.Frank’s account by identifying the element of flexibility and variation that have to be considered in accordance with the lifecycle of a building.

“John Harbrack is the guy who realised that you have to build houses for all different people on the system and that system is easy to make all different houses… So in his mind was that you can change your house during the lifetime of the house.” (Post 2014) Therefore, the time span is not what matters, but instead is “you are able to reuse the materials integrated into the building” (Heinlein 2014). Even if the users decide to continue using the building they might have to change it to a different type of usage or they want to use it for a different purpose which is why the ideology of being flexible as possible is substantial. By having open space in the interior, to put the load bearing structure as far to the arch shell as possible, to free the interior and to be as flexible as possible, and not to glue or amalgamate materials which cannot be disassembled later on are some of the key principles in this ideology. From understanding this concept were the architects being able to share the process of design through DfD principles and how it alters the process of design.

Dr. Frank states that the process of DfD is not that complicated until the construction process, as that is the reason Warner Sobek builds a lot with steel, glass and aluminum. The process of design is like almost similar, however, the structure would have to be thought of at the initial stages of design, as they’d have to think about how the design could be easily disassemble as it is to assemble it. “With steel and glass, you could bolt it and screw the connections, as it is all a very efficient way of building," (Heinlein 2014). Prof. Jouke talks about how the structure is always together with the design as comparable with the traditional method of designing. He P a g e | 45

stated that if we do not dwell on the thought of production, we will lose most of the essence of design prior to the construction process. As complex designs which do not think much about its structure and materiality, contractors will often solve the construction complications as not the way you would like to have it solved. “All the time I am thinking about how can I make it, how can I make it easy because if you make a design, if you do not think about how to make it many processes will go to the part of the construction?

If you are eager about it, and if you are smart, then you could build a project for minimal cost but you then have for some other things which you also find important. So that is the thought of it, when I think about real good construction or scheme or structure, all the time it is optimum about your cost. It is also part of our life. I like to do that as I am able to think about these things and to understand these happening with all these forces, so it is part of my design.� (Post 2014)

Aside from implementing structural design into the initial stages of design, the architects were asked if there are any special programs to assist them in the DfD. As according to Dr. Frank, there were no specific technologies needed to calculate or aid in their design, like comparable to the method of calculation used in the Passivhaus.

He explained that this is because DfD is a design of a system for the building structure and lifecycle whereas Passivhaus is as a mechanical system to regulate the air quality of the house. This means, DfD is a flexible system which differs according to the site, building size and usage and does not need a complicated system or technology to design it. However, there will be a new technology under development by Warner Sobek on adaptive building envelope and adaptive structures. Whereby these structures can adapt to particular lead takers and by changing the geometry, they are better able to bear load weights that happen only very seldom in the life cycle of the structure.

However, it contradicts with Prof. Jouke’s statement whereby there was a system developed by John Hargrack (the father of DfD) known as (SAR) which deals with the companies and architects. This system configures where you could and P a g e | 46

should set your walls, windows and doors based on a set measurement. This system could be found on computer software of the network. That is, however, the old system produced during the 70’s which has now developed into a new program. The Dutch government introduced a new subsidized program based on the developments from John’s system and was known as, Industrial, Flexible and Dismountable (IDF) Program. This program has been developed for four years, and it was presented to the company and the architects. However, as time passes by companies developed their own system under the principle of the IDF program making it docile and unimportant.

The architects still maintain their design within the grid of the system but not completely dependable onto the program.

“They then gave the money if they rebuild and redesign a building that is IFD building. So I was part of the community to give comments, to say yes or no to the project. You could find it on the website. So then you’ll see many projects where companies offered different systems about IFD, whereby sometimes it is more Industrial (I), sometimes it is more Flexible (F), sometimes more Dismountable (D), but these things are together. If you would think about flexibility then you would have to think about dismountable, then you’ll have to think about industrialisation. So there are different systems; this is mine that is his, but that is not the point because that is more on the commercial issue. If you have a basic line, to design it in a way you are open to finding a way and sometimes you use that. I told you about Hargrack, as he introduced the system about lines, and that was the system as that is how you would design a system for disassembly. He introduced the idea to the companies, but the companies when they have worked with that to make their own product in the IT program, it was not so important anymore.” (Post 2014)

On a different point of design, both the architects agree that DfD is a part of sustainable design despite the different ideology it brings as compared to the other concepts of sustainable design. As according to Prof. Jouke, the real meaning of sustainability is that, by the end of the product, the building could be easily P a g e | 47

dismantled and disassembled or changed as prior to its lifecycle. Even with critics stating that a sustainable design is about collecting energy, it is undeniable that DfD is a major part of sustainability. “If you do the other way around, if you change the building, you’ll have to dismantle it, or you’ll have to throw it away. That is not suitable as the way you want it.” (Post 2014) “As part of sustainable design is that you think about the end of the product while you use the building. So if you use the building for 20 years or 50 years you are sure that the company will change or the people who live in there will have different families, so the building has to change. So that is part of sustainability. But there are more elements when thinking about sustainability, as you are talking about materials, about technology, it is part of it. It is also necessary make it disassembly, as it is part of it.” (Post 2014)

Dr. Frank further acknowledged this on the subject of sustainability. He argues: “I think DfD is a crucial pre-condition for sustainable design.

That is for sure because if your structure or building could not be recycled how do you expect it to be sustainable? Sustainability is much more than being more energy efficient than your neighbor. It is also about issues being recyclable, making the materials, resources in the building useful in the future.” (Heinlein 2014)

P a g e | 48

4.2

How the DfD approach changes the way buildings are constructed DfD is a system of sustainable design that assists the construction process and understands the structural grid of the building, regardless of the scale and function of the building. Prof. Jouke argues that the materiality is the key principles of DfD as it is such an important aspect to maintaining a closed loop cycle of the resource. He stands by the principles of Cradle-to-Cradle using materials that could be re-used into the cycle and is bio-based. An example of a project they’ve done is a Children Art Hall in Rotterdam. The building has been dismantled and reused later on as a school, with a different scale but reusing the same components. He is interested in knowing how you could increase the building materials, making them lighter and better without maintenance; resulting in a more sustainable material. He believes “it would be best if the buildings would be made out of materials without burdening your sustainability so that they have maintenance for themselves.” (Post 2014) “We are all the time busy about materials... The other way is if you are looking for new materials; we are looking for new materials, sustainable materials so we have made a system of the Cradle-toCradle net, a system which gives comment to the materials, to find out which materials are good. So we have much debate with the producers of the materials, what’s in it... So you see it is changing all the time, and we are alert about it.” (Post 2014) On the contrary, Prof. Frank believes “it is not a question of using specific materials. The secret is in the connections and how you link the different materials in the building and how you structure its design.” (Heinlein 2014) However, they do have their consultancy, architects, engineers and energy consultants with specialist for recycling for waste management, so they’re always trying to work in an interdisciplinary team within their consultancy.

“One of the reasons why we build a lot with steel and glass, aluminum because you could bolt it and screw the connections, nuts and bolts, It is all a very efficient way of building and much of what is

P a g e | 49

done in the building industry right now of what you still have where concrete is poured on site, and there’s so much steel in it, so many different materials that will never be able to get out. Amalgamation of materials, this is something we are trying to avoid.” (Heinlein 2014)

This argument is further expanded by Prof. Jouke whereby he agrees that connections are one of the important key factors in building construction of a DfD building. His idea was that to make an agreement with the companies on the connections of materials of the elements because they are the major cost of the projects. He believes that ideally a system that could easily connect these materials is one of the solutions to the construction process, and that will be the future of DfD construction materiality.

The construction methods are as a standard construction for any process of design, but with the help of lighter materials and pre-fabrication process are most suitable for the quick assembly of building. However, there are no specific construction techniques to it as according to both the architects. When asked on the construction of one of the projects by Warner Sorbek, Dr. Frank argues that the construction process is fairly simple, and there were no complications to it, even though it took a longer time to develop such a structure which can be erected within a couple of days.

“Certainly it took some more time to develop such a structure which can be erected within a couple of days which could also be dismantled should be Warner decided to do so within a couple of days which is not glued, which is only bolt connected. So the design was a challenge and the construction process by itself was very smooth and took place within a couple of days. For steel structure itself which weigh about 12 tonnes, and when the glass was hang from the roof structure the glass weighs about 20 tonnes.” (Heinlein 2014)

P a g e | 50

Figure 4.1: The Children Art Hall by Prof. Jouke Post, 60 meters in length and 10 meters wide, designed especially for disassembly

Figure 4.1: The Transformation of the Children Art Hall to a School done by Prof. Jouke Post by reusing the same elements in the previous buildings, 65 meters in length and 15 meters wide.

P a g e | 51

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

“In the future, a quality of a building will be measured by its ability to transform on all levels of technical composition.”

(Durmisevic 2006, pg. 275)

P a g e | 52

These testify that DfD does alter the design approach but does not entirely changes the way that architects approach the building design. As upon receiving the brief to a project, the initial step in response to the project is something that is completely dependent on a particular project as a traditional design stage should be like. However, the structural design is implemented into the initial stages of design as according to a system of grids, providing simple solutions to construction methods and minimising waste of materials and resources.

As according to the literature review done on the ideology of DfD, this ideology is true.

Moreover, the program was created to support the process of DfD but is irrelevant due to the flexibility of the design. Other technological visualization programs are used but as a standard design approach to the client. Furthermore, it is not a question of using new materials or not using specific materials anymore. There is a broad range of suitable materials at our hand, but the true question goes to how much energy and effort to put into the design process of the structure itself and the construction process. If you leave this to the contractor alone, you are sure to get a result that would be the easiest for the contractor and most efficient for him/her, but would not be needed for the interest of the environment or of the architect.

In a nutshell, designing for disassembly is designing with thoughts on the implications of the decision for other issues such as energy efficiency, recyclability, usability, and how easily the building can be refurbished or cut into a different use. These are the key questions to think about, as the basic ideology of DfD is about the lifecycle of the building, what will happen once you have completed design, what will happen at the end of 10 years or whatever it is the lifespan of the building, and how can you take it down again. Moreover, DfD is more than producing prototypes as the building industry projects that every building is a prototype; instead it is a new structure. Therefore, the car industry cannot be compared directly to the building industry, but they have an approach where they know exactly which parts go into the car, who is the manufacturer, where exactly these arts go, who the manufacturer is, what is the weight, what is the materials, how to dispose of these materials and how to recycle it.

These are the approaches that ought to be transferred to the architecture of DfD.

P a g e | 53

However, the building industry takes a long time to accept new things. What would John Hargark developed in the 60’s is coming in nowadays, and people think that it is new, even though by fact it has been thought of a very long time ago. If you are in the front line, it takes much time for the building industry to make it come true. Unfortunately, most of the architects do not know about disassembly and these things. Even in huge cities such as Dubai or Moscow, with skyscrapers and massive buildings, they are still ignorant of this fact.

Nonetheless, it is most important to roll out the ideology of DfD out to all these architects, to make them understand it and make it part of their lives.One of the advices both architects have to say is that if you are becoming an architect, you should have a chat with the companies of building materials. Other than that, you should also see how a company fabrics about the wood elements or stone or concrete and to understand how they are working and what are the problems they face. From that point, does it come down to your problem? Thus that is where you could bring in a solution but in order to find a solution you must know what their problems is and how does it works, how is it made and what the cost is. For at the end of the day, what matters is the thought that “They’ll choose me because I am cheap or because of my price.”

P a g e | 54

REFERENCE:

BOOKS Borden, I., and K. R. Ray. The Dissertation – An Architecture Student’s Handbook (Second Edition).

Oxford, United Kingdom: Architectural Press, 2006.

Braungard, M, and W McDonough. Cradle-to-Cradle; Remaking the Way We Make Things. United States: North Point Press, 2002.

Huberman, M., and M. Miles. Qualitative Data Analysis – An Expanded Sourcebook (Second Edition).

London: Sage Publications Inc., 1994.

REPORT (EEA), European Environment Agency. Indicator Fact Sheet Signals - Chapter Waste. via www.eea.europa.eu/thees/waste/indicators, 2001.

Booth, A. Representing Space: Designing in Three - Dimensions. Master Thesis, Manchester, United Kingdom: The Manchester School of Architecture, Manchester Metropolitan University and University of Manchester, 2010.

Cookson, T. "Distilling Manchester's Kaleidoscope Urban Narrative: Weaving Heritage and Modernity in the Regeneration of Castlefield." Master Thesis, Manchester, United Kingdom, 2010.

European Commission. A Practice Guide to LCT and LCA, Institute for Environment and Sustainability Supporting Environmentally Sound Decisions for S&D Waste Management, 2011.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Anual Report, Buildings and Climate Change, 2002.

JOURNALS Adams, K, G Hobbs, and C Yapp. "Dealing with Difficult Demolition Waste: A Guide." 2012.

P a g e | 55

Altamura, P. "Cradle to Cradle Strategies for the Management of Waste in the Building Sector."

Green Design Conference. Netherlands: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), 2012. pg 18 - 23.

Chisholm, S. "Design for Deconstruction in UK Timber Framed Dwellings." Opportunities, Limits & Needs Towards an Environmentally Responsible Architecture. Lima, Peru: PLEA, 2012.

Crowther, P. Design for Disassembly. Environmental Design Guide, Australia: Royal Australian Institute of Architects, 1999. —. "Designing for Disassembly to Extend Service Life and Increase Sustainability." Durability of Building Materials and Components. Vancouver, Canada: CNRC, 1999.

Durmisevic, E. "Transformable Building Structures: Design for Disassembly As A Way To Introduce Sustainable Engineering to the Building Design and Construction." Proefschrift, February 2006: pg 1 - 306.

Groat, L., and D. Wang. Architectural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2002.

Hobbs, G, and K Adams. "Assessing Levels of Deconstruction and Recyclability." Green Design Conference. Netherlands: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), 2012. pg 2 - 5.

Kyle, B. R., S. H. C. Foo, and D. Torrey. "Standards Development Leading to Change in Design and Deconstruction Practices." Green Design Conference. Netherlands: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), 2012. pg 6 - 11.

Lazarus, N. Potential for Reducing the Environmental Impact of Construction Materials. BioRegiona Development, 2005.

Nielsen, S., and O. P. Larsen. "The Tectonics Potential of Design for Deconstruction (DfD)." Green Design Conference. Netherlands: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB), 2012. pg 12 - 17.

Paduart, A, W Debacker, H. N. D Temmerman, W. P. D Wilde, and H Hendrickx. "Construction Materials and C&D Waste in India." Conference Lifestyle Design of Buildings, Systems and Materials. Netherlands: International Council for Building Research Studiesand Documentation (CIB), 2009. pg 72 - 76.

P a g e | 56

Paduart, A., W. Debacker, C. Henrotay, N. D Temmerman, W. P. De Wilde, and H. Hendrickx.

"Transforming Cities: Introducing Adaptibility in Existing Residential Buildings Through Reuse and Disassembly Strategies for Retrofitting." Conference Lifestyle Design of Buildings, Systems and Materials. Netherlands: International Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation (CIB), 2009. pg 18 - 23.

Saleh, T., and A. Chini. "Building Green Via Design for Deconstruction and Adaptive Reuse."

Conference Lifestyle Design of Buildings, Systems and Materials. Netherlands: International Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation (CIB), 2009. pg 31 - 36.

Shrivastava, S., and A. Chini. "Construction Materials and C&D Waste in India." Conference Lifestyle Design of Buildings, Systems and Materials. Netherlands: International Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation (CIB), 2009. pg 74 - 78.

Storey, J. B. "From Ugly Duckling to Swan: Transformation as an Alternative to Demolition."

Conference Lifestyle Design of Buildings, Systems and Materials. Netherlands: International Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation (CIB), 2009. pg 14 - 17.

Sunke, F., and F. Schultmann. "Requirements for Sustainable Construction Materials and Components." Conference Lifestyle Design of Buildings, Systems and Materials. Netherlands: International Council for Building Research Studies and Documentation (CIB), 2009. pg 26 28.

Vilas, A., and F. Guilberto. "Construction and Demolition Waste Management: Current Practices in Asia." International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management. Chennai, India, 2007.

INTERNET SOURCES Zero Waste Youth. n.d. http://zerowasteyouth.org/en/?page_id=29 (accessed December 2013).

INTERVIEW ARCHIVE Heinlein, F., interview by T. I. Tengku Zubir. Design for Disassembly in Practice (April 5, 2014).

Post, J., interview by T. I. Tengku Zubir. Design for Disassembly in Practice (April 8, 2014).

P a g e | 57

P a g e | 58

APPENDIX: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

Ir. Dr. Frank Heinlein (Warner Sobek Architects)

The real person you would like to interview is Sir Warner is it not? Therefore, I shall speak on his behalf on this inspirations and dream. I’ll be talking about Warner’s dream?

When was he first exposed to DfD theory?

The first lecture he gave at the university of Hanover in 1991, called design for disassembly.

So it has been part of his teaching and his philosophy from the very part of the beginning. I can give you a quick explanation for that because, in Stuttgart, we have a very close click between the automobile industry and other engineering faculties, and in the car industry the design for disassembly has been an issue for more than 30 years. So at the time when Warner did his studies at Stuttgart where we have Porsche, where we have Mercedes, design for disassembly was a major topic. Nobody was talking about it in the building industry, but Warner took it out and tried to transfer it, this philosophy, and the approach to the built environment.

Since there are projects involved in DfD principles that have been imbedded into his teachings, how does DfD alter the process of design? Does it require different expertise?

Well, we have to know the general philosophy of Warner is that buildings should be ephemeral in the sense that the buildings can last for a 100 years if the users considered this useful but they can equally disappear without a trace within a very short time. So they do not leave any traces, material traces, even in the ground or on the ground, in the form of toxic waste or residues which cannot be disposed of. So the basic idea is to have structures which are as lightweight as possible so we would want to reduce the number of materials and bushels of the amount of energy that goes into the building and to find a way how the P a g e | 59

building can be either refurbished or completely dismantled after a period of 1 year, 10 years, or a 100 years. So the time span does not matters, what matters is that you are able to reuse the materials integrated into the building. So there is also even if the users decide to continue using the building they might have to change it to a different usage or they want to use it for a different purpose. So that is why we have this philosophy of being flexible as possible to have open space in the interior, to put the load bearing structure as far to the arch shell as possible, to free the interior and to be as flexible as possible, and not to glue or amalgamate materials which cannot be disassembled later on. It is not that complicated until we are building, and that is also one of the reasons why we build a lot with steel and glass, aluminum because you could bolt it and screw the connections, nuts and bolts, It is all a very efficient way of building and much of what is done in the building industry actually right now of what you still have where concrete is poured on site and there’s so much steel in it, so much different materials that will never be able to get out. Amalgamation of materials, this is something we are trying to avoid.

When you were talking about the construction for DfD, does it require a specific technology for designing it? ….disconnected…..The physical properties should be different from a night in winter when there is no sun, and it is frigid outside, so you should be able to react to that to allow warmth to go in or guard when you consider useful or to block it once you leave the heat either outside or inside. So that is what we are working on, what Warner’s working on at the institute of the University of Stuttgart, adaptive building envelopes and also adaptive structures. So there are structures that can adapt to particular load takers and by changing the geometry are better able to bear load weights, load cases that happen only very seldom in the life cycle of the structure.

We were saying about how architects and engineers worked together to create a DfD project, do you come up with different substitutions for materials and constructions?

For example, do you look into the new technological materials such as CLT, Glulam, etc?

P a g e | 60

Well, we do have in our consultancy; there are architects; there are engineers; there are energy consultants with specialist for recycling for waste management, so we are always trying to work in an inter-disciplinary team within our consultancy, and again I do not think it is a question of using any specific materials. The secret is in the connections and how you link the different materials in the building and how do you structure its design.

Were there any complications in any projects that you have been involved in for the DfD ideology? For example, the project R 128, were there any complications in the construction, in the design for it?

There were no complications during the construction process, certainly it took some more time to develop such a structure which can be erected within a couple of days which could also be dismantled should be Warner decided to do so within a couple of days which is not glued, which is only bolt connected. So the design was a challenge and the construction process by itself was very smooth and took place within a couple of days. For steel structure itself which weigh about 12 tonnes, and when the glass was hang from the roof structure the glass weighs about 20 tonnes.

In your opinion, does the concept of DfD marry with the concept of sustainable design?

Alternatively is it entirely different?

I think DfD is a crucial pre-condition for sustainable design. That is for sure because if your structure or building could not be recycled how do you expect it to be sustainable?

Sustainability is much more than being more energy efficient than your neighbor. It is also about issues being recyclable, making the materials, resources in the building useful in the future.

For the last question, what are the design implications of DfD and what are the outputs for it? So how do your advice the future architects to apply it for their design?

So I do not think it is a question of using new materials or not using specific materials anymore. We do have a very broad range of suitable materials at our hand, and the question is P a g e | 61

how much energy, how much effort do I put into the design process of the structure itself and the construction process. If you leave this to the contractor alone, you are sure to get a result that would be the easiest for the contractor and most efficient for him/her, but would not be necessary for the interest of the environment or of the architect designed by you or any other young architect. So what can you advice, what should you do, try to think of the implications of your design decision for other issues such as energy efficiency, recyclability, usability, how easily the building can be refurbished or can be cut into a different use. These are crucial questions and don’t think only bout formal aspects, think about the usability and the lifecycle of the building, what will happen once you have completed design, what will happen at the end of a 100 years or whatever it is the lifespan of this building, how can you take it down again, and this is something I think where architects should look at the rigid course, it is not producing prototypes as the building industry which always projects every building is a prototype, is a new structure. So the car industry cannot be compared directly but they have an approach where they know exactly which parts go inside the car, who is the manufacturer, what is the weight, what is the materials, how to dispose of these materials, how to recycle it, and this is the method that ought to be transferred to the architecture.

Those are very inspiring comments and thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

P a g e | 62

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT

Prof. Ir. Jouke Post

So I am doing a dissertation will the title design for disassembly, and I am sure you are familiar with the term DfD. Yes, of course.

So I am studying on how the theory is brought to practice by architects, so that is why I would like to interview you and see your thoughts on how do you bring that theory into practice, what were your experiences, what were the downfall, outcomes and so forth.

Therefore, I have 10 questions to ask, three is your personal background and seven are for the DfD questions. So the first question is where did you receive your education?

1971, it was long ago wasn’t it.

Yeah, I was not even born yet. Which university did you attend to?

In the University of Delft, Faculty of Architecture. So in the Netherlands for the primary school, then the high schools, then you go to the university. So I went directly from high school to the university.

So how long have you been working as an architect?

I started as a manager after my degree for some years, 2 years, and then I started to become an architect together with some guys and then in the 80’s I started my own firm. So, yes that is the beginning of my architecture. I started with the renovation of housing; you have a lot of old houses in Rotterdam and the neighborhood and then we make it wider, offices, new houses, sports buildings hospitals, so we grow.

P a g e | 63

When were you first exposed to the DfD? That was early so before the 80’s we were connected with John Hargrack, do you know John Hargrack? You have to get him. Because he is the father of DfD. He is the guy who realised that you have to build houses for all different people and on a system that the system is easy to make all different houses. So the title was not ‘Disassembly’ but the title was ‘Flexibility’ and to make a wide scope of the type, but it is also very easy to disassemble it. So in his mind was that you can change your house during the lifetime of the house. So he developed a system as it is (SAR), you could find it on the computer or the network. It is a system which deals with the companies, with the architects where you could place your walls, and windows and doors and so on, the measurements are very interesting. So it was started in the 60’s, his thoughts about it and the system. When I was working in the 70’s, I knew him already, and we did some projects together with him. To make a housing project in a flexible way that every house was different. So from that moment I was interested to do that, so my first housing project that would be in the 80’s I think, it was a new project with 60 – 70 houses in Rotterdam, I presented the flexibility. From that day on, it was already in my mind to work in that way. He made Hargrack, and he introduced Next 21, which is in Japan. Because his idea is to make it flexible, disassemble. So it became part of my life. Later on I became an expert, and I went into many communities and all these things but that was the start.

So that is when you’ve started integrating DfD into all your projects.

Yes, of course.

Now in terms of DfD, how does it alter the process of design? How does it re-hybrids and re-structure the design? Do you think about the structure first or something else when designing?

The thing about structure is together with design. All the time I am thinking about how can I make it, how can I make it easy because if you make a design, if you do not think about how to make it many processes will go to the part of the construction? If you are eager about it, and if you are smart, then you could build a project for minimal cost but you then have for P a g e | 64

some other things which you also find important. So that is the idea of it, when I think about real good construction or scheme or structure, all the time it is optimum about your cost. It is also part of our life. I like to do that as I am able to think about these things and to understand these happening with all these forces, so it is part of my design. Also, complex designs which you would all the time use to think yourself as an architect how will I make it, because if you do not then how will other people solve your problems and never the way you like to have it solved.

Yes, then it becomes different at the end of the day. Do you have special ways for DfD, for example, do you have special programs, 3D modelling? For example, Passivhaus has the unique technology; do you have any special technology too?

No. You know that we have had a subsidized program, Industrial, Flexible and Dismountable (IFD) program. Do you know that? It is from the government, and it is a program for about 4 years and they introduced that to the company and the architects. They then gave the money if they rebuild and redesign a building that is IFD building. So I was part of the community to give comments, to say yes or no to the project. You could find it on the website. So then you’ll see a lot of projects where companies presented different systems about IFD, whereby sometimes it is more Industrial (I), sometimes it is more Flexible (F), sometimes more Dismountable (D), but these things are together. If you would think about flexibility then you would have to think about dismountable, then you’ll have to think about industrialisation. So there are different systems; this is mine that is his, but that is not the point because that is more on the commercial issue. If you have a basic line, to design it in a way you are open to finding a way and sometimes you use that. I told you about Hargrack, as he introduced the system about lines, and that was the system as that is how you would design a system for disassembly. He introduced the idea to the companies, but the companies when they have worked with that to make their own product in the IT program, it was not so important anymore. So as an architect you are more open as it is more important to keep within the 10 – 20 lines.

When you were doing the DfD, does it differ from sustainable design, as is it the same or is it two different entities?

P a g e | 65

It is together, as part of sustainable design is that you think about the end of the product while you use the building. So if you use the building for 20 years or 50 years you are sure that the company will change, or the people who live in there will have different families, so the building has to change. So that is part of sustainability. However there are more elements when thinking about sustainability, as you are talking about materials, about technology, it is part of it. It is also necessary make it disassembly, as it is part of it.

Ah yes, because there were some critics that said that sustainable design is about collecting energy, but my research I want to proof that DfD is also a sustainable design.

Yes, of course. If you do the other way around, if you change the building, you’ll have to dismantle it, or you’ll have to throw it away. That is not suitable as the way you want it.

So when you design, do you have to look for new materials or do you adapt the old materials into your design? As do, you look into new materials such as aerated concrete or Glulam or an even more hybrid technology where they combined concrete with organic waste.

We are all the time busy about materials. One point is when I build that house; we’ve looked around for materials and to find it. As it was very difficult so we have used for a very long time, but all the time we are looking for it. The other way is if you are looking for new materials; we are looking for new materials, sustainable materials so we have made a system of the Cradle-to-Cradle net, a system which gives comment to the materials, to find out which materials are good. So we have a lot of debate with the producers of the materials, what’s in it. So now we are involved in the next step which is the bio-basede materials, building materials, so we do a project now expert in bio-based so now we are translating that products into building materials in bio-based materials. So it is the next step, in my house we did not use PVC materials, so we used clay for the pipes, and now they’ve developed the PVC that is now bio-based. So you see it is changing all the time, and we are alert about it.

P a g e | 66

So when you’ve said that you’ve looked into the materials, the Cradle-to-Cradle approach, do you think about its lifecycle?

All the products we are thinking about how to reuse them after that so that is one point.

However we’ve done one project which is a children art hall, in Rotterdam. It’s a long red building of 60 meters, 10 meters wide and it was standing there for 4 years, then after that they’ve dismantled it then it is later on reused as a school. So we’ve changed the children art hall from 60 meters by 10 meters, and the school 65 meters by 15 meters. It looked the same but it was different as we reused the elements and after that, it is a new building, it is a media building for television so they rent films there. So with the same elements we have made three buildings. So we’ve designed the original building for five years; the school was three years, and for the new building I think this will be to 10 – 20 years.

So, other than new materials, do you look into new construction processes? For example, prefabrication, are there new hybrids of it? Alternatively do you still use the normal way?

Yes, we do but you’ll have to be more specific I think. So I am a member of an organization where we are interested in a new construction process so we are connecting the companies and the architects, the universities together to come to the development of new materials and new elements. Is that what you asked? We are very interested in how you can increase the building materials, to make them lighter, to make them better, without maintenance, all these things so nowadays it is very interesting as you have every sustainable material. It would be best if the buildings would be made out of materials without burdening your sustainability, so that is the basic and then if they had maintenance for themselves, that is the aim.

A final question for you, how do you think this approach of DfD could evolve for the next level for the next 10 – 20 years? How do you foresee it going and will it still remain in practice or can it turn into something else? Can it become more common?

My experience is that, in the building industry, they need much time for new things. So what Hargrack could develop in the 60’s nowadays its coming in and people are thinking it is new, but I know it is very old. So if you are in the front office it takes much time for the building P a g e | 67

industry to make it come. Most of the architects do not know about disassembly, don’t know about these things. If you look at the big cities if you are in Dubai or Moscow you see the huge buildings, and you look at that time about disassembly and all these things, they do not use it. So if you talk to most of the architects, they have heard about it. Most important is that too roll it out to all these architects, understand it and make it part of their lives. So that goes usually from the idea so like my project XX from the idea until it is coming 25 – 30 years you would need for it. So that is the biggest issue, the only issue what is the future of these things.

We thought that you would have to make big good agreements with the companies about the connections of the materials of the elements. That was our first thought. However now we know that is not necessary because they’ve made that usually on a short flexible way they can make that connection. So I think this will improve until it becomes much easier and easier to make these connections between the elements because they are the cost of the project. If you ask a company about a roof plate, it has a beautiful roof plate with insulation in it; something zinc on the roof but it does not talk about the connection and the connection is the most important. So now it is not part of the company, it is not part of the other company so if you have a roof for a house, the column is concrete, the beam is concrete and the roof is a wood, this is to do by the contractor. However in the future, more companies will make the whole building without the contractor so they are thinking about the connections between the materials. I think that will be the next step. How can I make a system that if you have metals or woods or concrete, all the time it is easy to connect it? So it is also easy to disconnect it.

Do you have advice for future architects who want to dwell into this DfD theory and future designers?

Yes, I think if you are becoming an architect it is very interesting to talk to the companies and to see the company how a company fabrics about wood elements or stone elements and concrete elements, understand how they are working, understand their problems. So from that point, comes to your problem, so if you are in the company they’ll explain all about this and the other will explain the same, very interesting their problems also. So that is where you could bring in, but you’ll have to know what their problems are about and how it is working, how it is made and how is the cost, because they have to make it at a cheap price. So they are all thinking about at the end of it; they’ll think “They’ll choose me because I am cheap or will they choose me because of my price.” So that is what is in their mind. It is very interesting to find in these companies, to discuss this and to see the process.

P a g e | 68

Those are very inspiring comments and thank you very much for your time and cooperation.

P a g e | 69

P a g e | 70